High Court leaves lifesaving Mercury and Air Toxics standards in place, butrequires additional process by EPA; statements from groups that intervened in the caseWASHINGTON, D.C.— This morning in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the first-ever national limits on mercury and other toxic air pollution spewed by power plants. The rules will save between 4,000 and 11,000 lives each year by substantially reducing pollution from the dirtiest plants. Although EPA demonstrated that the health and environmental benefits of the standards far outweigh the costs to the industry, the Court found EPA should have considered industry’s costs earlier in the process, when it determined whether these emissions were worth controlling at all. The Court left the standards in place pending further consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the EPA. The majority of power plants are already in compliance with the standards, having met them without reported difficulty since April of this year. Because EPA has already evaluated the costs and benefits of the rule, the agency should be able to provide the cost analysis required by the Court in short order.

It is important to note that the Court did not reject the following key conclusions by EPA:

• Power plants are far and away the worst industrial polluters• Controlling toxic emissions is both technologically and economically feasible• The resulting pollution reductions will yield between $37 billion and $90 billion in health benefits every year• The public will receive $3-$9 in health benefits for every $1 that the protections cost the power industry

One in 20 Americans is killed by air pollution, and coal-fired power plants are a big part of the problem. These plants are also the largest industrial source of toxic air pollution by far, responsible for 50 percent of total U.S. emissions of mercury, a potent neurotoxin particularly dangerous to children. Nearly 7 percent of all U.S. women of childbearing age — more than 4 million women — are exposed to mercury at levels harmful for fetal brain development. The standards will reduce mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants by 75 percent.

Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the NAACP, helped defend these health safeguards as respondent-intervenors.

Statement from Jacqui Patterson, Director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program:“Our report, Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People, found that the 6 million people living near power plants in America have a significantly lower average income than Americans nationwide, and a disproportionate number are people of color. The financial interests of corporate entities in maintaining the status quo should not trump protection of the health of these communities.”

Statement from Jon Mueller, Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Vice President for Litigation:“The polluters fighting this battle are putting their profits ahead of the human health risks from mercury pollution. In the last 15 years, the number of states with advisories warning against consumption of locally-caught fish due to mercury contamination grew from forty states to all fifty, including those around the Chesapeake Bay. We also know that fish consumption advisories have limited utility as angling surveys tell us that local fishermen continue to eat contaminated fish or share fish with others despite the advisories. EPA has the power to protect these people and these waters, and it’s time for the agency to act.”

Statement from Joseph O. Minott, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of the Clean Air Council:"The Council is disappointed by the Court's decision not to uphold this rule, which would bring many of the country's oldest and dirtiest power plants in line with modern standards and allow citizens to breathe cleaner, safer air. It is clear that the benefits to public health and the environment this rule would provide dwarf the costs of implementing it, no matter when in the determination those costs are considered. We hope EPA will work quickly to address the Court's concerns and issue a revised rule that implements these protections."

Statement from Lisa Garcia, Earthjustice’s Vice President of Litigation for Healthy Communities:“The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the importance of EPA’s role in protecting our families and communities from toxic air pollution. The Court gave EPA the ability to finalize these critical public health protections once and for all. Now, EPA must act quickly. Thousands of lives are at stake. Further delay is not an option.”LEARN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE:http://earthjustice.org/features/profits-before-peopleREAD THE COURT’S DECISION:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf

Earthjustice statement on the opportunity to secure healthier communities and environment and ensure just and reasonable rates for customers

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a case with enormous practical implications for the rise of clean energy. The ability to turn down energy consumption on demand-- otherwise known as "demand response"-- has become a critically important energy resource that can avoid the need to build new polluting power plants and also balance our electricity system, allowing more renewable energy to power the country. In 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory System issued a landmark rule (called Order 745) to ensure that demand response would command its fair value in our wholesale energy markets. As a result, demand response has flourished, spurring investment and innovation that is contributing to a cleaner electric grid. However, in response to an industry challenge, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the rule. Earthjustice served as co-counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council in seeking Supreme Court review of the decision in collaboration with a coalition of conservation and consumer groups.The following is a statement from Earthjustice Clean Energy Managing Attorney Jill Tauber:"Today's Supreme Court action is welcome news in the effort to secure a cleaner, more reliable and affordable electric grid. Demand response plays a central role in our nation’s electric power system, providing tremendous environmental, consumer and reliability benefits. At stake in this case is FERC's ability to remove barriers to this vital clean energy resource in wholesale energy markets and fulfill its responsibility to ensure just and reasonable rates.”

11,000 lives a year at stake as coal industry and its allies oppose EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard

WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Wednesday, March 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a critical case involving mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants. At stake are up to 11,000 lives a year, and a precedent that industry profits are more important than people.

In late 2011, after an 11-year process, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the first-ever national standards for mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants. By requiring the worst-polluting plants to match the performance and technology of their more responsible competitors, the standards will save between 4,200 and 11,000 lives every year. Statement from Jacqui Patterson,Director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program“Our report, “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People,” found that the 6 million people living near power plants in America have a significantly lower average income than Americans nationwide, and a disproportionate number are people of color. The financial interests of corporate entities in maintaining the status quo should not trump protection of the health of these communities.”One in 20 Americans is killed by air pollution, and coal-fired power plants are a big part of the problem. These plants are also the largest industrial source of toxic air pollution by far, responsible for 50 percent of total U.S. emissions of mercury, a potent neurotoxin particularly dangerous to children. And nearly 7 percent of all U.S. women of childbearing age — more than 4 million women — are exposed to mercury at levels harmful for fetal brain development.

Statement from Jon Mueller, Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Vice President for Litigation:“The polluters fighting this battle are putting their profits ahead of the human health risks from mercury pollution. In the last 15 years, the number of states with advisories warning against consumption of locally-caught fish due to mercury contamination grew from forty states to all fifty, including those around the Chesapeake Bay.” These public health protections were already years overdue because the coal industry and its allies have been trying to derail them from the beginning. In this case they claim that EPA cannot decide whether to protect the public and the environment from toxic air pollution without first considering the effect on the industry’s bottom line.Statement from Joseph Minott, Executive Director of the Clean Air Council: "We hope that in considering this case the Court will be cognizant of the fact that the public health benefits of this rule — conservatively estimated by EPA at $37–$90 billion — will dwarf the cost to industry of bringing its oldest and dirtiest power plants up to modern standards." Last year, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected the coal industry’s argument. Industry — in a last-ditch attempt to overturn these protections — appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the NAACP, helped defend these health safeguards as respondent-intervenors.Statement from Lisa Garcia, Earthjustice’s Vice President of Litigation for Healthy Communities:“A decision for the coal industry would mean thousands of people across our country would continue to die unnecessary, premature deaths — all to protect the profits of the worst corporate polluters.”For more information and resources about this case, please visit earthjustice.org/mats .

Agriculture industry’s attempts to erode protection of species for economic gain fall shortWashington, DC— The Supreme Court today rejected an appeal from the agriculture industry and Central Valley water districts challenging restrictions on water diversions to protect the endangered delta smelt, a decision that preserves a core component of the Endangered Species Act. The decision to deny the appeal leaves in place the Court’s longstanding ruling that the Act gives priority to the survival of endangered and threatened species over economic considerations. This ruling was made in the landmark 1978 Endangered Species Act case,Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill.The following is a statement fromEarthjustice attorney Trent Orr:“The denial of Supreme Court review is a major victory for the preservation of the Endangered Species Act, which declares that the survival of a species cannot be outweighed by economic considerations. In creating the Act, Congress declared the preservation of species to be the highest of priorities. The denial of review also vindicates the Fish & Wildlife Service’s efforts to protect the smelt, rejecting a cynical attempt by the agriculture industry to blame the effects of the drought on the fish. Contrary to their claims, there have been no reductions in water allotment for protection of this species. The drought is what’s causing a water shortage, not the smelt.”ONLINE VERSION:http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2015/supreme-court-upholds-delta-smelt-protections-denies-industry-attack-on-critical-endangered-species-act

About the Salmon River Mountain Press

The Salmon River Mountain Press shares news from federal and state natural resource agencies, environmental, conservation and recreation groups in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The blog delivers the content one news story at a time.